Allahabad High Court Slams Uttar Pradesh Police, Says Loyalty to Political Establishment Overshadows Constitutional Duty
By Rajesh Pandey
Prayagraj: In a strongly worded judgment that raises serious concerns about governance and law enforcement in Uttar Pradesh, the Allahabad High Court has observed that a significant section of the State’s police machinery appears to be more accountable to the ruling political establishment than to the Constitution of India.
Delivering a scathing critique of the functioning of the Uttar Pradesh Police, Justice Vinod Diwakar remarked that the State continues to grapple with a deeply entrenched feudal administrative culture, where political influence frequently overshadows constitutional principles.
According to the Court, governance in Uttar Pradesh has, for decades, often been shaped by a system that prioritises personal authority and political interests over public service and institutional accountability.
The Court further noted that the State’s administrative structure has remained vulnerable to extensive political interference across successive governments.
It observed that decisions concerning transfers, postings, and promotions of government officials are often influenced by political considerations rather than professional competence, integrity, or merit.
In its observations, the Bench pointed out that officers perceived as politically compliant are frequently rewarded with influential and desirable assignments, including postings in major urban commissionerates and strategically important districts.
Conversely, officials who display independence or resist political pressure often find themselves transferred to less significant positions as a form of administrative punishment.
The Court described this phenomenon as a widely acknowledged reality within the State’s bureaucratic framework.
Justice Diwakar further observed that many officers appear to direct their allegiance vertically toward those in power rather than toward the constitutional values they are sworn to uphold.
The Court stated that concerns over transfers and postings have created an environment where field-level officers often tailor their actions to meet political expectations.
It also referred to past judicial scrutiny of alleged encounter killings, selective enforcement actions, and the purported misuse of provisions under the Gangsters Act against individuals viewed as politically inconvenient.
In one of the judgment’s most critical passages, the Court expressed concern over what it described as a troubling attitude within sections of the police force.
According to the Bench, adherence to the rule of law is sometimes treated not as a fundamental constitutional obligation but as an administrative hurdle.
The Court observed that arrests are occasionally carried out without adequate procedural safeguards, while First Information Reports (FIRs) may be registered—or deliberately withheld—for reasons unrelated to justice.
It further noted allegations of arbitrary use of preventive detention laws and routine circumvention of legal protections guaranteed under criminal procedure statutes, including the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). Judicial directives, the Court remarked, are at times followed only superficially, with their intended purpose undermined in practice.
These observations were made during proceedings involving Rajendra Tyagi under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.
While hearing the matter, the Court examined broader concerns regarding the exercise of police powers and the implementation of the anti-gangster legislation within the State.
However, since the Supreme Court is currently examining issues relating to the constitutional and legal framework of the 1986 Act,
Justice Diwakar refrained from issuing any conclusive findings on those specific questions.
Nevertheless, the judgment proceeded to highlight what it viewed as systemic shortcomings in policing and administrative accountability.
The Court also directed sharp criticism toward the functioning of the State Home Department.
It urged the Uttar Pradesh government to conduct an independent assessment of the competence, integrity, and operational effectiveness of senior officials overseeing law and order administration.
Expressing concern about the role of certain individuals who have occupied the position of Home Secretary, the Court observed that some office-bearers appeared to have acted in ways that served personal interests rather than institutional responsibilities.
Decisions concerning transfers, disciplinary proceedings, and responses submitted before courts, the Bench suggested, have in certain instances reflected considerations that were neither objective nor guided by constitutional principles.
Such conduct, the Court said, undermines the credibility and institutional integrity of one of the State’s most important administrative offices.
Reaffirming the foundational principles of democratic governance, the Court emphasised that constitutional administration cannot be subordinated to personal convenience, political expediency, or the interests of any ruling regime.
State institutions, it said, must remain accountable to the law and the Constitution rather than to individuals holding political power.
The Bench also referred to the infamous Bikru village operation conducted against gangster Vikas Dubey as an example of what it described as a culture of inadequate accountability within the police establishment.
The operation resulted in the deaths of eight police personnel, including a Deputy Superintendent of Police, after officers were ambushed while attempting to arrest Dubey.
The Court noted that the officer tasked with supervising the operation ultimately faced only a formal warning despite the severe consequences of the failed mission.
Justice Diwakar questioned the proportionality of such a limited disciplinary response, observing that it was difficult to reconcile the gravity of the operational failure with the relatively mild action taken against those responsible.
According to the Bench, such instances contribute to a broader culture of institutional impunity, where accountability is weakened, and administrative failures go largely unpunished.
The Court warned that this environment perpetuates a system marked by feudal attitudes, political patronage, and a lack of transparency, ultimately eroding public confidence in governance and the rule of law.
